Tag Archives: moments of passion

You can do the things you feel you should; you’re an expert at going through the motions. Your handshakes with strangers are firm and your gaze never wavers; you think of steel and diamonds when you stare. In monotone you repeat the legendary words of long-dead lovers to those you claim to love; you take them into bed with you, and you mimic the rhythmic motions you’ve read of in manuals.

When protocol demands it you dutifully drop to your knees and pray to a god who no longer exists. But in this hour you must admit to yourself that this is not enough, that you are not good enough.

And when you knock your fist against your chest you hear a hollow ringing echo, and all your thoughts are accompanied by the ticks of clockwork spinning behind your eyes, and everything you eat and drink has the aftertaste of rust.”

It was within that post in which I posed the ultimate judgement we should apply to the new Trump administration …“the potential redemption of a generation.”

At that time I shared thoughts with regard to how a Trump presidency and his speculated band of merry old white men, his “band of brothers” <his cabinet and advisors>, would guide America to the next level of greatness despite the fact they had built their own personal empires on a variety of greater business acumen & business culture hollow attitudes & achievements.

Hollow?

It is my belief that, as a generalization because there are exceptions, old white men have hollowed out the business world in their quest for “winning at any cost” and “maximize win-to-cash” ratio.

Everyone should note that Trump is the poster child of this hollowness <and I will aggravatingly point it out over and over again> and I have pointed it out on the following topics already:

Capitalism.

Branding.

Profit.

Wealth dispersion.

Communication.

They hollowed them all out.

But this weekend I was reminded of another … a much simpler pragmatic crime than lack of morality … hollowness of behavior.

Now.

I hesitated to call this “the hollowing out of morality” mostly because that sounded a little harsh and I tend to believe the reality within this particular hollowness is more pragmatic. That said … it doesn’t make it any better just that I didn’t really want to get into a morality & ethical finger pointing game.

Behavior

Leadership is a complex mix of personal, professional and pragmatic.

When wielded well it is a beautiful tapestry of effectiveness, however, beauty is often in the eyes of the beholder when actual effectiveness becomes the measuring stick. As a reminder, old white men leadership grew up in a business of dictatorship leadership behavior or, at its best, benevolent dictatorship.

Old white men grew up in the hallowed halls of hollowed leadership management. This means that their ‘management twitch muscles’ inevitably provide reflexive business decision making based on this.

The easiest way to point this out is that businesses have developed a myriad of cultural initiatives and, yet, old white men leadership tends to simply treat them as “feel good politically correct” initiatives. They view them as “society dictated” thinking and not “business dictated” thinking. Therefore a hollowness was inherent in the organization between how the old white men leaders attitudinally approached the business, how they viewed behavior and how the organization actually behaved.

Old white men began talking longingly of straight talk, when people knew their place in business and ‘carrot & sticks.’ Old white men started looking at businesses in disdain as vehicles of political correctness and not stark effectiveness. The truth is that many of the old white men simply didn’t buy in to a better way of doing business and, therefore, when put in a corner & challenged revert back to the hollow management style of “do what I tell you to do and shut up.”

To be fair, old white men did not create this hollowness … they simply propagate it.

That is Trump in a nutshell.

Anyway.

To be clear, simplistically, old white business men behavior falls into one of two camps:

Those who do something because they were shown something and thought “hmmmmmmmmm, this makes sense to do.”

Those who do something because … well … they think they have to <but still believe it is stupid and that ‘the old way’ was better>.

The problem is that the latter group is incredibly good at pointing out how they are technically ‘hiring more women, promoting more women, giving opportunities to minorities, discouraging sexist and racist behavior in the office’ and everything else they would throw into the “mamby pamby politically correct business bullshit” bucket … all the while chafing under the true spirit of behavior.

I say all this because if you strip away all the horrible racist and incorrect moral equivalency rhetoric you will find an old white man who’s “make great again” is grounded in a pragmatically hollow view of behavior. There is no subtext nor is there any higher ground it is a simple black & white behavior analysis in which everyone’s behavior is viewed as a commodity and the only differentiation is ‘effectiveness’ or outcomes.

I say all this because while I pointed out the old white men have a chance at redemption we saw, in the spotlight and podium, one old white man not seeking any redemption nor showcasing any redemptive characteristics. I worry that this one man is beyond redemption.

And as I say that I remind everyone that the old white man Donald J Trump is surrounded by a crusty bunch of curmudgeonly old white men who we would hope we could find some level of pragmatic redemption.

In this moment, in this time and place, something is happening of which we really have to create nothing … but, instead, rather shape something. And, in doing this shaping, we are actually building something within the moments we elect to stand up and define ourselves … well … building “us” … okay … maybe it is building “me or I.”

This moment is different because it demands that we take a whole bunch of seemingly meaningless little moments … almost unrecognizable … that have got us to where we are attitudinally, intellectually and physically … and stop and speak out in some way that will be meaningful to us for the rest of our lives.

And.

In this moment … I would suggest that this is not the time to define yourself by standing against something but rather standing up & for something. This is not the moment to be “anti” something but rather “pro” something. ‘Anti’ suggests you can turn, or stem, the tide of affairs when the reality of ‘affairs of men’ would most likely suggest a tide is a tide and affairs will be affairs and by being ‘pro’ it may be possible to show which harbor the tide should enter. Don’t define by what you are against … define by what you are for.

That said.

I could suggest that for many of us this is a “now or never” time.

Look.

I can point out all the issues with old white men and all their flaws which could potentially impact, negatively, the united states of America until I am blue in the face.

And I will continue to do so.

But inherent in pointing out hollowness is the unequivocal truth that hollowness begs to be filled with something. And in today’s world, in this time and in this place, it will inevitably filled by the decisions of each of us, one by one, on how we will choose to be defined.

Each of us will do this. That I believe. It may not be today. It may not be tomorrow. But at the end of this wretched situation we find ourselves in I believe everyone will have chosen where to stand and how to be defined.

=================

There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”

―

Ralph Waldo Emerson

=======

“We cling to our fairy tales until the price for believing in them becomes too high.”

―

Ransom Riggs

==================

So.

I came across this “I want the fairy tale” gif on a tumblr site <from the mediocre movie Notting Hill with a fabulous British cast> while looking for an image and I ignored it for awhile … and then kept coming back to it.

I am thinking more as in ‘your fairy tale.’ As in “doing something that matters” or “be anyone you want” or “being important” or “being on the front cover of Time magazine” or … well … whatever fairy tale you believed was possible when you were young.

Maybe we could call it “your dream.”

I guess I don’t care what you call it … but … do we ever really lose wanting the fairy tale?

I tend to believe somewhere within us … well … maybe the 90% of us every day schmucks who never really reached the ‘fairy tale’ we may have envisioned in youth … that we haven’t really completely given up 100% of the desire for “it all” … or “the fairy tale.”

Now.

That said.

I don’t really agree with good ole Ransom when he says we cling to our fairy tales until the price.

I don’t agree because I actually believe we don’t cling to them … we more often let them slip away under the guise of “Life.”

I say slip away despite the fact it may seem like we have given it up.

In fact … I would guess the majority of us have shoved that ‘fairy tale’ deep back into some dusty corner of our mind because … well … we have shit to do and shit to deal with.

But I don’t think we should confuse that as “not wanting our fairy tale.”

To me.

This is simply reality shouting so loud that our fairy tale cannot be heard. Its there. It just loses its voice the older and older we get.

But here’s what I think I know <and I could be wrong>.

Your fairy tale is always there

I truly believe if you had a real dream, kind of the ‘fairy tale you wanted’, not some silly childish dream … it never goes away. In fact … I think it actually whispers n your ear more often than you are most likely to admit. What I mean by that is it whispers … and we purposefully ignore it as “silly”, unrealistic, ‘that was then’, ‘when I was young and naïve’ and … well … pick your silencing mechanism. We have a zillion different ways to muzzle our fairy tale.

On occasion … maybe in a moment of reflection … we actually pull it off some dusty shelf, dust it off, wonder if it still represents the fairy tale we thought it could be <and we could be> and maybe even listen to its whisper for a while.

Regardless.

Even if you do not hear it … it is still there.

Even if you only hear a whisper … it is still there.

Even if you believe you have moved on and its voice is not worth listening to anymore … it is there.

Which leads me to …

A fairy tale has no expiration date

Fairy tales do not really die. They can live forever. I think we confuse death with “we have quit on it.” now. “Quitting on it” can take on a number of extremely viable good looking high quality t-shirts.

Everyday life.

My existing career.

I am too old to change direction.

Its too late.

I have too many responsibilities for what I think is a ‘just me’ decision.

All of these t-shirts look frickin’ good on you when you look in the mirror.

But none of the t-shirts represent the death of your fairy tale … just something that can cover it over. A fairy tale has no expiration date.

And with that said … the only thing stopping you from pursuing your fairy tale is time <depending on your existing starting point and what you may need to do to attain your fairy tale>.

Uhm.

I think my point today is I am fairly sure most of us had some fairy tale which means that we actually still have a fairy tale.

I think my point today is that I am fairly sure most of us believe Life has persecuted us by persecuting our dreams and fairy tales.

I think my point today is that I am fairly sure most of us are making a vulgar mistake.

Fairy tales don’t go away, we don’t really stop wanting them and they really have no expiration date. You may find yourself at 30 going “time to go for my fairy tale” … or maybe you do so at 50 or at any age.

I think we forget that we really do want ‘the fairy tale’ because … well … ‘fairy tale’ sounds so “what kids think.”

That is a mistake … a vulgar mistake of not dreaming simply because you feel like Life is contradicting, and contradictory, to your fairy tale.

Personally I think it does no harm to sit down and say “I want the fairy tale” … and then see if it is the time to get your fairy tale. It does no harm because … uhm … what happens if you actually do make the pivot and get the fairy tale?

“The fragile structure of logic fades and disappears against the emotional onslaught of hushed tone, a dramatic pause, and the soaring excitement of a verbal crescendo.”

——-

Bill Bernbach

=================

“It was the in-between time, before day leaves and night comes, a time I’ve never been partial to because of the sadness that lingers in the space between going and coming.”

——

Sue Monk Kidd

================

Ok.

Far too often when talking about pacing in life and business … we focus on ‘slowing down.’ We do that because we have convinced ourselves that not only is the world moving at a faster pace than ever before but that we actually have to move really fast or we are not doing something right.

I will not debate the sheer amount of shit we are faced with in any given moment but I would debate our concept of speed and moving fast and our unhealthy belief there is not enough time.

Not everything has to be done immediately.

Not everything should be done with minimal information.

Not every moment has some magical window of opportunity that we will miss out on if we do not act ‘now!’.

Now.

This is a little weird when we stop and think about it.

Facing reality, as an individual, it can appear like a speed boat … crashing through waves with any significant milestones flashing by so fast they become a blur.

Facing reality, collectively. It can appear like a fully loaded tanker … plowing its way through the waves where significance is measured, if significance is discernible at all, in broad sweeping miles of slow turns.

That’s life in a nutshell. That is time in a nutshell. That is reality in a nutshell.

Suffice it to say … reality can be a real bastard. Good leaders manage the bastard by managing the pacing of how we deal with all the bastard’s stuff.

Here is a truth.

The truth is that every good self-aware business leader has a panel in their head with a play, pause, rewind and fast forward button.

They have the ability to see things in real time … what has occurred up to that point and, in some way, can envision the ripples of what happens from there. Within that ability they decide to fast forward, or pause, or continue playing at the same speed … or even decide to rewind a little. They see reality and decide how to best take advantage of it.

Some leaders have one speed. There are some who we call ‘the bull in china shop’ asshats who only know forward at some fast speed bludgeoning and blustering their way forward. Some are like golf carts steadily chugging along at steady long play.

Good organizations have a variety of different types of employees but there is no good functional organization without leaders, or a great leader, with a ‘play/pause’ panel.

Here is another truth.

The other way a good leader uses their ‘play/pause’ panel is how they think about possibilities.

But we tend to make reality an even worse bastard. One thing we do that make reality worse is to convince ourselves that ‘the possibilities are infinite in any given moment.’

‘Infinite’ sounds good conceptually, as does possibilities, but when it comes to real pragmatic decision-making the entire idea tends to overwhelm & freeze rather than enhance efficient & effective decision-making.

The reality is that within any given moment possibilities are finite.

And the good leaders & managers recognize that. The great leaders and managers not only see finite possibilities but they see each possibility as a window … some wide open, some slightly cracked and some closed. And in any given moment they have the ability to consistently scan the finite possibilities with a finger poised over their play/pause/rewind/fast forward buttons.

That consistency is at the foundation of any good leader’s value.

Shit.

Consistency, in general, may have the highest value it has ever had in the history of Mankind.

Why?

Well.

Today’s world is structurally hostile to nuance. Subtlety not only doesn’t sell … it invokes ‘space’ in which others are more than willing to place something. I mention this because a play/pause panel is all about nuance within the complexity of reality.

It is easy to go one speed <or just stop when you get tired>. It takes touch and nuance to pause at the right time, rewind accordingly, fast forward through some difficulties or to take advantage of windows of opportunity or … well … just keep playing <which is sometime tougher than what you would think>.

This actually means great consistency is not about maintaining one speed but rather maintaining a consistent sense for how to adjust pacing accordingly.

This consistency is … well … complex. Business systems, more often than not, are a bit more complicated in their underlying dynamics than simplistic theory or simplistic diagrams attempting to create structure to an organization and its dynamics with the market & consumers/buyers/employees.

I would suggest that you cannot draw a picture for what is <because it is obsolete as soon as it is drawn> and you cannot draw a picture for what will be <because predicting multi-dimensional dynamics is outside the purview of reality>.

All that said.

That is why you cannot pay enough money to a business person who has the ability to know when to slow down to enable effective speeding up … or to pause to accept some responsibility <or explain> … or to fast forward at the right time.

That is why you cannot pay enough money to a business person who has the ability to stand still without really standing still. What I mean by that is the leader with a play/pause panel never really stands till <even though they may be pausing> because even a pause contains some activity and self-awareness to do something within that space.

===========

“She may be going to Hell, of course, but at least she isn’t standing still.”

–

e.e.cummings

===============

I talk about this entire topic often.

And it is a difficult thing to explain.

In our business world today we like to have simple formulas and handbook guides.

Pacing is more ‘feel’ and awareness and … well … yeah … some humility.

I say humility because no matter how good a leader you are and no matter how good your pacing is there will always be some issues <mostly because you get some things wrong>. Part of the ‘wrong’ portion is you inevitably leave some people behind and some ‘minds’ get a little scattered. And you have to get them back on track and aligned and sometimes you have to step up and show a little humanness and everyone resets when you do that, give you another chance and get a little re energized to pick up their bags and hit the road with you again.

Look.

Real play/pause management is midstream management and not in some grand 5 year, or annual, plan. Midstream where you have some critical learnings and maybe even some momentum or real shit hits the fan.

And you purposefully do not have everyone stop … just maybe pause … assess … kind of like having a fighter squadron get fuel in flight … and then fast forward on the mission.

I will say one thing about the proper use of pacing. Good pacing business management creates exponential dramatic speed increases … even if you pause, rewind or maintain the current play.

I feel confident saying that reality, occurring on its own, shows that these dramatic shifts don’t really happen as part of a business status quo. Dramatic business shifts are situational, contextual and often simply do not happen because a business doesn’t have a business person who sees it, senses it or can steer it … they don’t have a business person with a good play/paus panel.

It is a proven fact <I think> that pacing is one of the most effective tools an organization can wield to effectively run a successful business. I would also suggest that more often than not this pacing is not driven by the market, Reality, but rather driven by one person <or several> who have the ability to sense a contextual shift in the dynamics within a situation. A person who doesn’t have a picture drawn to adapt against but can draw a picture of what they see & sense from which others can leverage from to generate speed.

Not everyone can do this.

===============

John Coltrane: “I don’t know what it is. It seems like when I get going, I just don’t know how to stop.”

Miles Davis: “Why don’t you try taking the horn out of your mouth?”

==============

What I do know is that a leader who has only one speed and who claims ‘good business instincts’ when it is really only one speed is not a great leader, nor a good leader, but rather a one-trick pony <one speed> leader and they have a habit of making bad choices.

Suffice it to say … a one trick pony shouldn’t be a leader … it should be an employee.

“Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess.

An ‘instinct’ in as unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it.

Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform.

Man has the power to act as his own destroyer–and that is the way he has acted through most of history.”

―

Ayn Rand

==============

Ok.

Discussing business leadership is … well … interesting.

Its also <slightly> interesting I used an Ayn Rand quote to open a thought on business leadership.

Why?

Almost everything Rand espoused focused on the individual and self-interest … and leadership inherently focuses on the group and ‘making the tide rise higher for all … sometimes at the expense of a higher one.”

In addition … <simplistically> the central thesis of Rand’s philosophy is that unfettered self-interest is good and altruism is destructive.

I am no going invest a lot of time on Rand’s thinking <of which I have mixed feelings about> but because I speak to many business leaders the balance of ‘business democracy, organizational culture, and business autocracy, i.e., someone has to make a decision at some point and organizational consensus is most likely not the most effective way to generate good decisions, I will spend a moment on Rand.

In my eyes, far too often, Americans tie the Rand philosophy of ‘supreme self-reliance devoted to the pursuit of supreme self-interest’ to a simplistic version of core American ideals: individual freedoms & hard work. The whole premise is based on the promise a better world is available if people can simply pursue their own self-interest without regard to the impact of their actions on others. That thought is usually followed by “this works because everyone is simply pursuing their own self-interest as well.”

Unfortunately what this ignores is a successful organization’s ultimate mission: “e pluribus unim” <out of many one>.

Unfortunately what this ignores is successful cultures typically exhibit a ‘twitch muscle’ which automatically makes 95% of people to find greater satisfaction in contributing to ‘the team’ rather than solely finding individual success.

All of this matters when discussing business leadership and leading organizations.

Now.

That said.

I come back to a key line in the opening quote: an ‘instinct’ in as unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct.

In a world in which we tend to want to oversimplify things far too often “business instincts” get stripped of any context or the rich & royal hues most typically associated with ‘good business instincts.’ We also strip leadership down to its barest and far too often suggest the importance of ‘’good business instincts’ as some superior skill <and instincts are not a skill but an attribute> inherent in good leadership.

I would suggest we would be much better off stripping leadership down to not one thing but rather discussing a backbone which makes leadership stand tall.

Look.

A shitload of people can lead.

An even larger shitload of people think they can lead.

And even smaller shitload of people can actually lead well.

And while there are a shitload of well written and thoughtful piece on business leadership characteristics I would suggest that all business leadership often comes down to your ‘backbone’ of actual skills with regard to three things: developing an effective vision, having a consistent business philosophy <business acumen> & instincts.

Many leaders have some skill in one of these three, some actually are good at two out of the three but the best leaders are good at all three <with some extraordinary skill at either the visionary or instincts>.

I point out the vision and instincts aspects because it is that ‘dance’ which … well … can make a business dance. Some people talk about strategy & tactics but this is a little different. This is kind of a step up from that.

This is kind of like being able to envision the 5 lane highway which leads to a destination you kind of envision and then actually have the instincts which enable you to instinctually shift lanes, shift speeds and avoid everyone else on the highway in the moments that matter.

Suffice it to say … working with someone who understands, and can manage to, vision and someone who has good instincts is fairly rare — and all three even rarer.

By the way, as I have written before … most people who vocally espouse the fact <belief> they have good instincts tend to have shitty instincts. In fact … I could generalize relatively safely by suggesting anyone who verbalizes they have good instincts … most likely, in reality, do not have good instincts <good instinctual leaders & decision makers tend to have the humility to have an innate sense to keep their mouths shut about any instinctual behavior and focus on verbalizing functional abilities to do shit in certain situations>.

Anyway.

Someone can actually be a pretty good leader and not be very good at all these things.

For example … one of my best bosses wasn’t particularly good at the vision aspect but had an incredibly strong sense of ‘right versus wrong’ with regard to business philosophy and excellent instincts which tended to permit a shitload of progress <if not particularly visionary progress>. I would note he was pretty good at hiring some people who were visionary and combined with what he was good at he had a nice ability <albeit sometimes a lite too pragmatic> to tighten some loose vision and … well … get shit done.

For example … one of my best bosses was an incredible visionary with an excellent ability to set everyone’s sights on the ‘horizon’ coupled with a strong business philosophy of “this is the kind of shit we will do and how we will conduct ourselves in doing it” he could get people focused and emotionally connected with what they had to do. However … his instincts were not so hot. I would note he had a nice ability to surround himself with people with good instincts <maybe not enough but some key people> which permitted him to pick out what to do from options resented by good instinctual managers rather than have to depend on his own instincts.

I imagine my point here is twofold <1> leaders who are good at all three of these things are not a dime a dozen and <2> the good leaders who are not good at all three of these things tend to recognize where they are a little weaker and are smart enough, and confident enough, to surround themselves with people who do have those skills.

I imagine the greater leadership philosophical point here is that good business leaders don’t really fight truth.

They see truth. Accept truth. And work within the parameters of truth.

==========================

“Stop opposing the truths.

The truth is truth no matter how you take it. It is not going to be changed for your inconvenience.”

―

Bikash Bhandari

==================

I point out truth because, of all things, leadership is reliant on a leader being able to see truth … and not just what they want to see.

I point out truth because, of all things, vision and instincts are driven more by truth, knowledge and ‘learning’, than by any nebulous “I have good instincts.’

I point out truth because, of all things, people actually have a natural inclination to work for the mutual benefit of an organization … they like to cooperate and collaborate … and truth has an incredible ability to bond together the largest most disparate organization as well as offer the initial burst of energy which pushes organizations forward out of trouble and toward something better when a leader actually makes a decision.

Be wary of the verbose ‘I am good at this’ leader because … well … as with anything else in Life & business … leaders have to be ‘good’ at a number of things not just some simplistic self-interest driven accolade.

“But I live elsewhere; it is only that the attraction of the human world is so immense, in an instant it can make one forget everything. Yet the attraction of my world too is strong.”

———-

Franz Kafka

============

So.

We talk a lot about the fact you cannot run away from things and far less about avoiding.

Yeah.

We talk about procrastination, which is a version of avoiding, but by avoiding I mean more along the lines of ‘ignoring’. Ignoring meant by that you see the world that you want to live in and conduct yourself in and go about ignoring the rest of the world doing your own thing. That is simply a different version of ignoring the real world. Simplistically you are assuming that the world & Life, in general, is indifferent to you therefore you will go unnoticed and just be able to do what you want to do <in a less unfettered way than if you actually remained engaged in the ‘other world’>.

Sounds good, doesn’t it?

I will say that avoiding some of the more undesirable aspects of Life & the world is pretty appealing. I would also suggest that avoiding some of the more undesirable aspects of Life & the world is pretty unrealistic.

There are a number of reasons but suffice it to say the overwhelming amount of information … even within the narrower walls of a business, is stunning. In the good old days even the worst of things worth avoiding <lies, conspiracies & implications> needed a little time to grow to some size that they became unavoidable. In today’s world those same things need seconds to gain some traction and minutes to grow to some size that they are unavoidable.

Today Google processes 61,000 search queries a second. That’s something like over 5 billion queries a day. This means information is everywhere … regardless whether it is good information or bad information.

Today 99% of all employees in business are online … and nearly 50% of the entire world is online <by 2020 more people are expected to have cell phones than running water>.

My point here is not about the challenges of being interconnected with so much information driven by technology but rather avoiding the world is just not a viable option <no matter how attractive it may seem>.

But please do not focus on technology. Technology is simply a means … without people technology is simply an unused ancient aqueduct. It is people which make avoiding impossible <technology just enables their ability to not be avoided more>.

My version of this is office politics. I hate office politics. Ok. Not just hate … I believe it is people wasting energy and all I want to do is to focus on getting the good shit done.

In a perfect world you can decide to avoid the real world of the office intrigue and just do what you believe is the right thing to do for the business and ‘do.’

It isn’t avoiding by ignoring it is more like avoiding by deciding to ride the parallel rail on a train track.

Unfortunately the business world, and the world in general, doesn’t work that way. No matter how much I may have wished to run on a parallel track it actually works more like an atom in which we all circle the business at some maddening speed in which you crisscross with even the shit you want to avoid.

This gets compounded in several ways … two of which would be:

Someone will always make what you are doing political even if it is not.

Office politics always contain people who play politics to meet their own ends. That is their means to do so. I believe these people can only see the world through the eyes of palace intrigue and political maneuvering therefore they filter everything done by everyone through a filter of “what do they have to gain by doing that.” That is their first filter level. Yeah. Eventually they may get to the more important “what does the business have to gain by doing that” but they almost always judge everything being done on a ‘who is a winner and loser’ scale

Someone will always find something nefarious in what you are doing.

I will not call this conspiracy thinking but, in general, a business culture more often than not breeds a sense that <a> everyone is out for themselves and <b> there is no such thing as a truly altruistic business motivation.

And while it would be naïve of me to suggest that avoiding those two thoughts as ‘stupid & untrue’ it is a little sad that those beliefs pretty much underlie every organization.

Please note, once again, the people aspect in everything I have noted. You may want to avoid things but you will find your destiny along the path you have chosen strewn with a shitload of people crossing your path … uninvited and many unwelcome.

I would suggest that Life is best lived by not ignoring shit and avoiding shit but rather stepping into the world an deal with it. Sometimes that may mean side stepping some of the shit you don’t want to deal with and sometimes that may mean bludgeoning your way over and through some of the shit you don’t want to deal with but if you do this you actually have some control over your own destiny. I say that because the problem with trying to maintain your Life on a parallel track, and knowing that inevitably it will be crossed by people & shit you had been purposefully avoiding, is that you will always be reacting to the bullshit rather than proactively facing it.

Look.

While you may not care about business or business politics my point is my point … you cannot avoid the world to conduct yourself in the ways & means you want to conduct yourself. You are stuck with the world, and in the world, whether you like it or not.

Oh.

The other thing you are stuck with is the fact whether you stay on the road engaged with the world or take another road to try and avoid it … well … you will meet your destiny.

“Debate is great for sharpening the mind, but I worry that really skilled debaters might internalize the idea that the point of discussion and debate is victory, rather than truth. In debate, if you encounter a compelling counterargument, you just try to find a way around it.

But you should argue for truth, not for victory.

Really good debaters run the risk of ignoring valid counterarguments.”

Let me be clear … if you suck at debating, you will be a sucky contrarian.

If you cannot debate you simply are an opinionated person with a non-mainstream point of view sitting angry in some office or at some desk thinking everyone is just not smart enough, and as smart as you, because they just can’t see what you see.

I have never had a desire to be angry nor staring at my own non-mainstream point of views piling up on my desk unused.

Next.

I am a self-proclaimed contrarian and … well … contrarians use truth … a lot.

Let me be clear … if you suck at telling the truth, clearly & concisely & unequivocally, you will be a sucky contrarian.

Truth is at the core of being a successful contrarian. Contrarians, simply by offering a contrary thought, find themselves constantly on the defensive defending the thought. This happens even if you go on the offensive. This happens because … well … contrary ideas & thoughts feel a little less comfortable, less familiar and more risky therefore people will inherently want to pick it apart. There is where ‘false’ haunts a contrarian. One falsehood is not just one falsehood. One falsehood implies others are there only yet to be found. If you cannot be an unequivocal truth teller you are simply a peddler of possibilities … and, well, true contrarians thrive on making possibilities realities.

I have never had a desire to be angry nor staring at my own non-mainstream hopeful possibilities piling up on my desk unused.

All that said.

When I saw the quote I opened with I had to sit back a little and think … think about how, as a contrarian, debate is used or not used.

Many contrarians focus on what I would call ‘the bookends’ — what their idea/thinking is and the ultimate outcomes — and judge themselves on that <and far too often dismiss counter thinking offered that changes the contrary thought>.

It is quite possible we contrarians <as well as many other people> should focus on ‘how they play the game’ … or how they debate … because I frankly don’t give a shit what you preach nor whether you eventually benefit from what you preach as long as what you preach is grounded in integrity & fair play & truth, what you actually do and how you behave is grounded in integrity & fair play & truth and what you preach isn’t just preaching but rather a thought which inspires additional thinking <which means the original thought will most likely look pretty different at the outcome than it did at the onset>.

If you do it right … if you debate it right … then you, and the idea itself, will benefit in that if the idea & thinking gets adopted in some form or fashion you will have done so as an outcome of what you preached, what you debated and how you behaved during the debate.

That seems like a good thing.

But here is where the opening quote really made me think … contrarianism is like a drug. When you have a contrarian idea and it is actually a good idea <and not all contrarians can tell if their idea is actually a good idea when being contrary> you can get caught up in the debate. You can start getting what I sometimes call “horizon blindness.” Horizon blindness is when you are so focused on the end destination and getting to the end destination you treat almost anything said, and any objection, as simply an obstacle to getting to the horizon … possibly ignoring any of the value being offered within the debate.

Even the best contrarians can get horizon blindness. Suffice it to say … the best contrarians can be aware of what is at exactly the same time as where they want to be. it permits some ‘cooperative arguments’ which <a> help build a better idea at the conclusion and <b> some ownership within all involved at the conclusion.

Anyway.

Here is what I think about being a great contrarian <maybe this is my wish list of what I could be>.

Scrupulously fair.

Contrarians have to walk a fine line. They rarely are flippant with a contrarian idea therefore can be dogged in its defense. Yet, they must be fair to the idea, the beauty of thinking itself and what others think & say.

In fact … you have to almost relentlessly be fair to everything else around you … scrupulously fair as a matter of fact.

Not domineering with beliefs.

This is a fine line to a contrarian. Frankly, any contrarian idea cannot step lightly into the fray. If it does it gets suffocated by the familiar, the status quo & the easier path. But the key word in what I suggested is “beliefs.” Any contrarian idea is constructed with a number of beliefs. The truth is that all beliefs reserve the right to not only be challenged but also changed. Therefore, dominating with a belief, in the contrarian world, is just asking for trouble … in addition … it is the wrong thing to do if you truly want the best idea at the end.

Cooperative argumentative dialogue.

The Socratic method <Socratic debateis a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions>. Every truly good contrarian I have ever met has been a master at the ongoing cooperative argument. They have been adaptive in debate, flexible in the flow and adept at finding seemingly irrelevant factoids and making them relevant at the appropriate moment.

Thinking tutor.

I want to be careful here because this is not to suggest contrarians are better thinkers or smarter thinkers and that they, and only they, can be the professors of thinking. What I am suggesting is that contrarians, in general, do think differently and they see things slightly differently. This means when you do it right … when you debate well & fairly & cooperatively … other people seem to walk away thinking about things in a slightly different way.

Relentless truth teller

One lie, one half truth, one ‘truthful hyperbole … and the whole house of cards tumbles down. Great contrarians are great pivoters away from what they do not know. what I mean is that instead of offering a ‘lie’ <falsehood> when faced with not knowing something they typically place an “I don’t know” on the table and pivot to a “but here is what I do know” and place a truth on the table where the “I don’t know” used to be. Key to what I just shared is a slavish attachment to truth … even at the expense of an “I don’t know.” contrarians realize the game being played is chess and you will sacrifice a piece rather than imperil the entire board.

That’s it.

When I saw the quote I opened with I loved the nuance in the description of debate … and made me think that maybe we, in business, misuse the concept. we may really debate in business … and maybe we shouldn’t be debating. Maybe we should be arguing for truth, not for victory.

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”

―

Leon C. Megginson

=============

“We’ll never survive!”

“Nonsense. You’re only saying that because no one ever has.”

―

The Princess Bride

==============

Ok.

Multiethnic People Forming Circle and Innovation Concept

Business can look a lot like war … well … at least the battles portion. That said … it seems like one could take some lessons from the military at the same time.

Today’s thought is about who you surround yourself with.

Business is rarely, let’s say maybe 90% of the time, not an individual effort but rather a team/group effort.

I dug around in notes I have jotted down and found a thought I had scribbled down, an almost verbatim thought from someone I respect, and consider a good friend, a Christian military veteran who received 12 decorations in 2 tours in Vietnam <including several Purple Hearts>:

“I am fairly sure I served with heathens, homosexuals and a number of others who my faith would consider sinners. I do know that being in the field highlights the flaws & sins of everyone which, in an odd way, brought us together as flawed Marines trying to survive. But, out there, there really was only one line, one distinction: those who were smart enough to help you stay alive and those who were stupid enough to get you killed. Nothing else mattered.”

The main thought?

“Smart enough to help you stay alive and stupid enough to get you killed.”

To be clear.

This doesn’t really mean someone intellectually or educated smart versus some less-than-intellectual “stupid’ person. This is about the ones who have the smarts & savviness to be alert to the things that need to be done, and can do them, to survive versus the ones who can be oblivious to the things that can kill you <and a shitload of faux intellectuals fall into the latter camp>.

That said.

That pretty much summarizes the business world.

Insert “idea” and … well … there you go … “smart enough to help your ideas stay alive and stupid enough to get your ideas killed.”

<I imagine I could also suggest the thought works for getting fired too>

The point is, in business, if you have any desire to do good things you know you will not be able to do it alone and you learn pretty quickly who you want around you … especially when bullets start flying.

You don’t care if they are black, white, yellow, green or any Crayola color you can think of.

You don’t care if they are gay, straight, lesbian, Furrie, zygote or a transgender.

You don’t care if they are Muslim, Jewish, atheist, pray to Zeus, Christian or Buddhist.

All you care about is surrounding yourself with those offering the highest likelihood of survival. You also care about insuring those around you represent the skills and savviness needed for survival.

Look.

Business certainly has aspects of battle and military strategy.

Especially so if you think about ideas and having winning ideas. The metaphor seems appropriate because good ideas, shit … even great ideas, do not “win the day” all on their own. 99% of the time they need to battle their way through a variety of well-placed and ill placed obstacles.

I think I was really lucky that I learned this lesson very early in my career.

I learned by watching others, who had good ideas, champion them alone seeking persona glory … and watching a good idea die.

I learned by championing what I thought were good ideas with the wrong people … and watching a good idea die.

I learned by watching others, who had a good idea and a good team, champion an idea and defend it, fight for it and see it stand at the end … alive & kicking.

My sense is that this learning affected how I hired people when I was a group leader. I wanted people who had ideas and who wanted to champion ideas and who was willing to set aside some personal glory for the sake of insuring the idea didn’t die.

Anyway.

I know many military people but have never been in the military.

I imagine when you are on the battlefield you are standing as close to the one who can shoot the straightest and will shoot when needed … regardless of whether they look like me or not.

I imagine when you are on the battlefield you are more likely to be saying to your fellow soldier … “stay away from Jack, he is one crazy motherfucker and is gonna get us killed” than worrying about whether some person has some quirk, or looks funny or lusts after Little Ponies when they go home at night.

I would suggest that survival, in general, has a nasty habit of eliminating distractions and having you focus on ‘who can do the job.”

I would suggest that if you care about ideas in business that survival of your ideas, in general, has a nasty habit of eliminating distractions and having you end up focusing on “who can do the job.”

I admit.

As a person I don’t get racism, I don’t get xenophobia, I don’t get discrimination, I don’t get any of that stuff. I just think anyone who gets caught up in all that is caught up in some bullshit. And bullshit has no place if you are interested in progress … let alone surviving.

I admit.

As a business person I don’t get racism, I don’t get xenophobia, I don’t get discrimination, I don’t get any of that stuff. I just think anyone who gets caught up in all that is caught up in some bullshit. And bullshit has no place if you are interested in the progress of your ideas … let alone the survival of your ideas.

I admit.

If you want to succeed in business … well … there really is only one line, one distinction: those who are smart enough to help you stay alive and those who are stupid enough to get you killed. Nothing else matters.

“Laws and principles are not for the times when there is no temptation: they are for such moments as this, when body and soul rise in mutiny against their rigour … If at my convenience I might break them, what would be their worth?”

―

Charlotte Brontë

=====

“Great ambition is the passion of a great character. Those endowed with it may perform very good or very bad acts. All depends on the principals which direct them.”

–

Napoleon Bonaparte

==============

Well.

While I am not so sure Life offers us nonstop limitless opportunities to move forward and make progress toward things we want or like <albeit it does offer us a lot> what it does do is offer us a relentlessly tantalizing smorgasbord of opportunities to take the easy way out, appealing short cuts and opportunities to circumvent rules & regulations <while no one is looking>.

My point is that Life pretty much says“there is always an easier way and choice if you are willing to set aside your principles just this one time.”

And Life relentlessly whispers this in your ear … moment … after … moment.

I mention this to everyone because if Life really does this moment after moment <and it really does>, you would be tempted to find an excuse to not stand up for your principles on occasion.

“Just this once”you say to yourself when you are tired. Whatever the decision or action we are discussing, to you, in the moment … it is mentally “an exception”.

And before you know it <after some “just this onces“> you have edged on to that slippery slope.

I think the most interesting thing to think about is this whole idea of principles and slippery slopes. It is interesting because most people think of principles a steadfast, unshakeable and solid. We never think of them as slippery. And, yet, seemingly harmless momentary exceptions are actually extremely harmful moments in which each exception makes the next exception even easier to do.

In other words. You end up finding an easy excuse to not stand up for your principles.

Part of the problem is that the whole concept of principles has become an incredibly twisted concept in today’s world. In fact, “principles”, in today’s world, can often get placed in that heinous slot with ‘political correctness.’

What I mean by that is the meaning of the word, and phrase, has been subverted into a negative space from its intended space which is, and should be, a positive one.

It seems odd but principles and principled actions are a tricky topic.

Tricky in that while a principles ‘are statements denoting fact or generality which are universally or widely considered to be true and fundamental’ they, in fact, have a great range of meaning. While ‘principles’ most often refers to the elementary, or fundamental, basic proposition of some system or of conduct, it can also be tied to some specific designation, i.e., religion, government, business, education, etc.

It would be much nicer if we actually referred to ‘principled behavior’ as an axiom. While axiom is a derivative of ‘principle’ it is more tightly tied to ‘one agreed upon as the basis of truth … a truth so self evident as to be indisputable’.

Principles, in theory, are an axiom … unfortunately, in practice; they are more a theorem <a proposition>. I offer this philosophical mumbo jumbo to make the point that principles is a trickier topic an idea than one would think.

I do believe the internet has made this topic trickier in that civil discourse has devolved to such a state that if you were to offer your ‘principles’ to an audience there will inevitably be a negative nasty, and often cruel, backlash suggesting that what you would consider principles are … well … bad.

Principles fall into the horrible trap of “small minds discuss people; average minds discuss events; great minds discuss ideas.” And, yeah, the deterioration of discourse in general aids Life in whispering in your ear that maybe, just maybe, just this once you should find an excuse to not stand up for your principles. This often happens in a twisted way in which we focus labels of “evil thinking” toward people who do not think like us, or have similar principles, which then seems to provide an open license to anyone who wants to vent with extreme behavior.

I make that point because … well … all of this makes the momenst you really do find an excuse to not stand up for your principles extremely important. They are important because your principles are your means of integrating what you know, knowledge, and what you feel <moral> which enables you to assess value of individual decisions and choices. In other words … the value assessment provides the signpost for doing what is right or doing what is wrong.

In other words … your principles are applied to Life to organize and control the path of your Life <and as a larger sense … of society>.

In other words … principles affect all systems of law in effect today and, in effect, provide us with the signposts for guidance even above the law.

In other words … principles permit you to focus on what is in my best interest without doing so at the expense of the best interest of society as a whole.

Yeah.

All that sounds good.

But if you have some strong principles you will inevitably worry that if you live by your principles … doing what you believe is right and the right thing to do … in what you perceive is a ‘dog eat dog’ world … you will get chewed up.

You worry that doing the right thing and having principles will actually hinder them in their journey toward their ambition.

Think about what I just wrote.

I suggest you do so because we older folk spend a shitload of time ranting about the altruism focus of the young … that they want to ‘do good’ but don’t want to ‘do work.’

We are missing the point.

In fact … we may be missing something we should be paying attention to.

Most of these kids simply don’t want to compromise their principles. They are not being dreamers nor are they being Pollyannaish with a perspective to the world … in fact … they are possibly seeing the world better than we old folk are.

They want to work.

They want to run businesses.

They want to be productive and be part of some company where they can be part of a them doing and making something.

They just don’t want to compromise their principles.

I use the young to make an example but everyone walks this line.

The line?

You good get tugged toward the side of bad.

And, yes, the bad get tugged toward the side of good.

Anyway.

This was a semi-sad post for me to write.

Sad in that it seems like we have forgotten the power of principles … and I sometimes think we believe the system is driving our behavior, and our selective stance with regard to our principles in the moment, and success.

Sad in that I think we forget the system shouldn’t dictate our use of principles, nor should Life, but rather it is the people who build and make up the system and, therefore, dictate the definition of principled behavior.

Sad in that I think sometimes we older folk appear to cynically view the system as ‘it is what it is … deal with it … do what you need to do … or you will lose.’

Sad that the younger people view the system as ‘it is what it is … I don’t like it … I will not compromise’ … and they are electing to try and avoid it … and many of us older folk are ignoring them as naïve.

Sad in that … well … how is any of this, in any way, a successful formula for the future?

Look.

Life makes dealing with your principles a constant struggle.

The real point is that you can fulfill your ambition & maintain your principles … you just have to decide to not find an excuse to not stand up for your principles.

To be clear … we can all find an excuse to not stand up for our principles.

To be clear … we can actually stand up for our principles and still sometimes find we are standing up for the wrong things and in the wrong way.

To be clear … this will not be a one-time choice. It will be an ongoing calculation throughout your entire Life, a decision that must be revisited repeatedly, week after week, moment after moment as new decisions unfold.

I say that because in business … even if you gaze into the ‘principle crystal ball’ it is never a one time choice nor is it an unchanging choice. Business is ever changing and the leaders of a business are constantly being challenged and responding in an ever changing way.

Business has a nasty habit of challenging a leader’s character almost more than it does his/her skills.

Business has a nasty habit of challenging your own character almost more than it does your skills.

We have a change the world attitude. We don’t mind being disruptive as long as it is with the intent to create something new and better. Smart disruption displaces the conventional and replaces it with an unconventional way to do things that actually meets what people want, need and expect.

We call what we are doing ‘shaking the category etch a sketch.’

Visions should be lofty and grounded.

Simple yet reflective of a complex world.

Pragmatic & practical yet not the status quo.”

—–

Bruce McTague

=======================

Ok.

I must get trapped in dozens of discussions & debates over innovative ideas, disruptive ideas and what is “new.”

And thanks to Yale and some guy named Loewy I have a tendency to toss around two phrases a shitload in the conversations — “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable” and optimal newness.

<note:<a> ‘optimal newness’ is a relatively new phrase which i have appropriated to replace some of my less eloquent phrases saying the same thought, <b> I have used ‘most advanced yet acceptable’ as a thought for years as it was offered to us by ‘the father of industrial design’, Loewy, in the 1950’s but more recently highlighted in an Atlantic article>

I pull these phrases out of my thought bag of tricks because invariably these “let’s talk about new ideas” conversations get squeezed between two extreme bookends and the phrases help to unsqueeze the thinking.

One bookend is the highly caffeinated entrepreneurial ‘disruptors’ who are convinced they have an idea that no one has ever seen or done before and want to present it as “the coolest thing you have never seen before.”

The other bookend is the pragmatic risk averse “change agent” who proudly presents the same widget which was once painted taupe and is now painted flat black as “new, improved and contemporary.”

By the way.

These bookends actually have names: neophilia, a curiosity about new things; and neophobia, a fear of anything too new.

This conversational tug of war is a reflection of the basic human truth that we love, and actively seek, familiarity <safeness>… uhm … as well as the thrill of discovery <risk>.

We do this with … well … everything.

Therefore we are almost always torn, slightly or a lot, by these two opposing thoughts.

This is the thinking that led that guy, Loewy, to articulate his industrial design attitude as “Most Advanced Yet Acceptable.”

He believed to sell something surprising, make it familiar; and to sell something familiar, make it surprising.

This thought is important.

It is important because while an idea can, conservatively, die 101 different ways 2 of the most likely ways to die is <a> you have a surprising, possibly truly disruptive idea, and your inclination it is to make it look spectacularly surprisingly different – therefore scaring the shit out of most people and they do not attach themselves to it, and <b> you have a spectacularly unspectacular useful idea and … well … you undersell it because it is difficult to articulate beyond the familiarity – therefore boring everyone into believing it is not worthy of a ‘new’ label.

And before you beat the crap out of me on all of this The Atlantic article offers a nice proof point to ponder:

In 2014, a team of researchers from Harvard University and Northeastern University wanted to know exactly what sorts of proposals were most likely to win funding from prestigious institutions such as the National Institutes of Health—safely familiar proposals, or extremely novel ones?

They prepared about 150 research proposals and gave each one a novelty score. Then they recruited 142 world-class scientists to evaluate the projects.

The most-novel proposals got the worst ratings. Exceedingly familiar proposals fared a bit better, but they still received low scores. “Everyone dislikes novelty,” Karim Lakhani, a co-author, explained to me, and “experts tend to be overcritical of proposals in their own domain.” The highest evaluation scores went to submissions that were deemed slightly new.

I shared this research to show that even the dullest deserves some surprise & novelty while “new” has some limits when trying to communicate the pragmatic <both of which are important with regard to … well … almost everything>.

That said.

I think the real point here is that you need to find the sweet spot … that there is an “optimal newness” for ideas or, well, how about we call it “advanced yet acceptable”.

So why do we always have this struggle?

Well … in business the challenge seems to be the business world has put an incredibly high value on <perceived> innovation & disruption and a lesser, if not nonexistent, value on <real> functionality & highly pragmatic thinking & ideas.

This out of whack valuation steers some business people to some extremely shallow misguided thinking and hollow ideation.

Nowhere is this found more often than when discussing “disruptive ideas” and innovation … which are the two “phases that pay” when we talk about new.

We use these words to imply this idea will change the world <and more often than not it is just a nice idea which will make an impact in its own little universe … assuming it doesn’t die a quick death>, therefore, it becomes the only type of idea we should pay attention to.

In other words … if it’s not disruptive, its crap.

Well.

That’s bullshit.

The truth is that many, if not most, of the most foundational ‘innovative’ or new ideas the world has ever seen tend to be the most overlooked, unseen to the naked eye, unobtrusive ‘disruptors’ we have ever interacted with.

The truth is that most effective useful disruptive ideas are almost always leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior as well a ‘things’> from which your idea will end up tapping into.

I say that with two thoughts in mind:

something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … nothing.

smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

Ponder them <not too much because it will make your head hurt> … but everyone should keep these two thoughts in mind whenever seeking optimal newness – you cannot create something from nothing.

Anyway.

In today’s business world “new” and “disruptive” are inextricably linked.

This is a shame.

It does not benefit either concept or idea to do this.

New is … well … new. No more and no less <although there are certainly degrees of new>.

Disruption actually means ‘to challenge.’ And, despite what many want you to believe, disruption is actually about creating something … not simply to destroy something.

I would actually suggest that disruption, at its core, is about changing the way you think – creating new ways to think about something.

Think about it.

Conventions train us to do the conventional.

I say that because accepted beliefs <conventional thinking>, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking.

Therefore, constructing new accepted beliefs may not mean destroying the old, the familiar, but rather creating a new way of thinking and creating a new familiar.

All this becomes important as you consider what would be “optimal newness.”

Because as we wander aimlessly between the hyperbole of disruptive and new … well … many new ideas are simply a fresh derivative of ‘familiarity.’

I say this to make a point.

Optimal newness, 95% of the time, leverages some familiarity … something existing … and it is grounded in some reality that people can grasp.

Therein lies a truth “optimal newness” never loses sight of.

The biggest ideas with the biggest end impact on our lives typically have gained some momentum not because they were some huge ‘new, never seen before’ idea but rather because the innovated on some conventional thinking and shifted us into some different way of thinking about something.

Maybe we should think about it this way … if today’s innovators have been successful … have seen farther than others before … it is because they have stood on the shoulders of giants … well … maybe stood on the shoulders of something that already existed.

Regardless.

I read somewhere in one of those bullshit pop psychology pieces that confident people are better than most people at seeking out small victories … they don’t necessarily need “big” ideas or maniacally pursue being called a ‘disruptor’ as they pursue success.

I tend to believe confidence can reside in comfort within ‘optimal newness.’

That the confident business people know that newness doesn’t have to be splashy nor hyperbole driven but rather surprising functionality.

And maybe that is the larger point with regard to ‘optimal newness’ and ‘most advanced yet acceptable.’ In business these days we seem to either believe “go big or go home” and therefore either overplay our hand or completely underplay it <because it isn’t big enough>.

Just think about that last thought as you ponder the last dozen good ideas you have seen die before your eyes.

I will end by stating, unequivocally, that this is easier to write about then to put into practice.

Shit.

Finding the ‘optimal’ anything in business is hard.

All I know is that every time I have this discussion with a sales group talking about selling, an innovations group talking about articulating an innovation or even a CEO about ‘organizational change management’ I get a lot of cocked heads as they think about it a little.

It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty, but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives.

The future is an inﬁnite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.”

–

Howard Zinn

====

“When you do things right, people won’t be sure that you have done anything at all.”

–

God (in Futurama)

=========================

Well.

I get a little concerned, on occasion, that in the business world kindness is considered a negative thing.

Simplistically there is a general impression that if you are kind, or nice, you are not tough — or tough enough to assume the more difficult responsibilities.

At this attitude’s worst dimension it breeds a belief ‘assholes win’ therefore … ‘be an asshole.’

To be clear. There is a shitload of empty rhetoric of ‘playing nice’ and ‘team playing’ but that is from an overall organizational perspective … not a management track perspective. For on a parallel track to the ‘be kind/pay well’ is the “the toughest fighters are the leaders.”

Now.

Aspects of that latter point are true but it seems like everyone forgets to add onto that thought … “but that doesn’t mean you need to be so at the expense of kindness.”

Once again, in the business world, it seems like we are encouraged to believe in the completely fucked up thinking of “one thing and one thing only.”

When asked the question … “What is the one most important attribute of a great manager?” … answer — “ability to make the tough decision” <implication: you need to be tough above all>.

And while I could argue whether I am exactly right on what I am now going to share, the reality is that one of the most important attributes of a great manager is actually “ability to make the tough decision without losing sight of kindness.”

One attribute can actually be a combination of things and not just “one.” For some absurd reason we tend to believe that people will be torn between these two opposing forces. That we will naturally gravitate toward one or the other and, therefore, be battling what we believe is right rather than effectively doing the job.

Well.

It is a battle when you are younger in business and is a battle worth fighting <even if you get it wrong on occasion>. Just a in military training the more experience I get the more likely I will win the battle the next time <assuming I survive>. The point is that if you make the bold choice to incorporate kindness from day one <which no one seems to be pragmatically encouraging young people to do so> by the time you become a real manager and leader it just becomes something you do without thinking about it.

Yeah.

I did just use the world “bold.”

I did so because in today’s world everyday kindness, and done so consistently, is both a bold pioneering statement in a “eat the little fish” world. And, yet, this bold personal decision can offer some amazing rewards.

Several years ago I had to offer ’20 things about Me’ to a company and within it I shared this as my #1 thing:

My grandfather

The greatest man I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. A simple kind man who honored integrity, kindness and truth above all. He taught me more about me, life and how to live Life <without overtly teaching> than anyone I have ever known. He remains my North Star for my life. I can only hope to be half the man he ever was … but at least he gave me something to aim for.

It was in that same piece I also shared his:

Spike Lee

I was in my early 30’s in the audience when I heard Spike Lee say these words about his films … “I recognize everything I do impacts how people think … and even what they do … I have a responsibility every time I create anything.” It changed how I viewed what I did and actually how I did it moving forward. Basically … I began assuming responsibility.

So.

What the heck does my white conservative non bombastic grandfather have to do with Spike Lee?

Choice.

Yep.

Choice.

Deciding to be successful and be kind is a choice. And a big choice given the kind of shit they try and teach you far too often in business these days. Assuming responsibility for kindness … well … impacts everything. It is one of those ‘ripple affect’ type choices – with benefits in the present and in the future. Spike Lee reminded me ‘choice’ needs to be represented in the never-ending onslaught of ‘present moments’ and my grandfather reminded me of the ultimate reward for actually living that kind of Life.

By the way I am not suggesting “manufacturing kindnesss’ or ‘purposefully creating kindness.’ But I do tend to believe you can affect your kindness by consciously deciding that kindness can win an that kindness does not diminish effectiveness in business.

The truth is that Kindness wins if you simply believe it can get injected into … well … discrete moments of now.

Uh oh.

This means that kindness is driven not only by awareness but some common sense and clarity … and there is no secret code other than making the choice.

Shit.

No secret code.

Unfortunately … without a code I have to offer the unfortunate truth about kindness … you have to do something, or actually be consistently kind, to actually be kind. What I am talking about is make choices. Choose to be kind and act with kindness.

Yeah.

You almost have to defiantly choose to choose to be kind.

Aa well as choose to live in defiance of all that is not kind.

Look.

I am not suggesting you shouldn’t call someone a jackass if they truly are a jackass, or be harshly constructively critical if that is what will get through to someone or even make the hard call where people get pissed.

Sometimes business demands you to portray some dick-like qualities. It does so not because it encourages you to actually be a dick, or a jack ass, but organizational inertia is incredibly difficult to address and, yes, sometimes you have to kick some ass to get everyone moving.

So maybe you need to selectively be a jack ass.

=============================

“Got to mind the delicate social nuances when you inform some poor fellow that he’s a dumb motherfucker.”

————

Locke Lamora

================

And, yet, you can be a jack ass without sacrificing kindness.

What I am suggesting is if you carry kindness with you … and offer kindness as a thread of all that you do … well … kindness can win and does win. In other words you can still make the tough management decisions, the hard choices, be a little bit f a jack ass on occasion and, yet, in the end everyone will see that you did the right thing ‘well.’ in other words you can win the right way instead of just winning.

I will tell you one thing that I know for sure. While being consistently incorporating kindness into your business Life may seem like a bold pioneering choice I would suggest that by doing so … well … it offers some comfortable familiarity <we remember how nice it feels>. There is a small sense of satisfaction; let’s call it “added value”, in everything you do if kindness is injected into the decisions and behavior. It is almost like you have baked a cake and someone has placed your favorite icing on top when they give it to you.

If you do it right, no one really notices that you didn’t put the icing on the cake but rather they did.

Anyway.

Kindness does matter … even in business. and kindness can be done without costing you promotions, effectiveness and … well … character. And isn’t that last thing the most important anyway?